PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations - 7 October 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the next statement, I remind the Government that I understand, and the whole House understands, that the business of the Government continues during recess and that Ministers will always need to respond to events in the UK and around the world. However, it is frustrating for hon. Members on both sides of the House when major planned announcements are scheduled during periods when the House is not sitting, particularly towards the end of recess.

Although I appreciate the Government informing me directly of the developments on some of these issues, that does not substitute for informing the House. If announcements made towards the end of last week had been held over until after the weekend, hon. Members would have had the first opportunity to question the Secretary of State, rather than learning about it through the media.

Ministers should come to the House to announce their policies in the first instance, even if that means waiting a few days. The excuse that there is an election elsewhere in the world is not my concern, because it is the elected Members on both sides of this House whom I represent.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for your instructions at the beginning of this statement. With permission, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. [Interruption.]

Order. I have done the bidding. I do not need others to come in on the back of it.

On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.

Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.

Not true.

Order. You will all be able to question the Secretary of State, so please just wait for that moment.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

You have been here long enough to know that points of order do not come at this stage. Good try, but it is not working.

If Members oppose the deal, which of the alternatives do they prefer? Doing this deal on our terms was the sole way to maintain the full and effective operation of the base into the future. That is why, in November 2022, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), initiated sovereignty negotiations. It is also why my predecessor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, ultimately continued with those negotiations. Under the previous Government, there were 11 rounds of negotiations, the last one held just weeks before the general election was called. In July, this Government inherited unfinished business. The threat was real, and inaction was not a strategy.

Inaction posed several acute risks to the United Kingdom. First, it threatened the UK-US base. From countering malign Iranian activity in the middle east to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, the base is critical for our national security. Without surety of tenure, no base can operate effectively or truly deter our enemies. Critical investment decisions were already being delayed. Secondly, inaction impacted on our relationship with the United States, which neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal. I am a transatlanticist, and we had to protect that important relationship. Thirdly, inaction undermined our international standing. We are showing that what we mean is what we say, when it comes to international law and our desire for partnerships with the global south. That strengthens our arguments on issues such as Ukraine or the South China sea.

Further legal wrangling served nobody’s interests but our adversaries’. In a more volatile world, a deal benefited us all—the UK, the United States and Mauritius. This Government therefore made striking the best possible deal a priority. We appointed Jonathan Powell as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for these negotiations, and he has worked closely with a brilliant team of civil servants and lawyers. Their goal was a way forward that serves UK national interests, respects the interests of our partners, and upholds the international rule of law. The agreement fulfils these objectives. It is strongly supported by partners, with Present Biden going so far as to “applaud” our achievement within minutes of the announcement. Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have also backed this “successful outcome” which “reaffirms” our “special defence relationship”. The agreement has also been welcomed by the Indian Government and commended by the United Nations Secretary-General.

In return for our agreeing to Mauritian sovereignty over the entire islands, including Diego Garcia, the UK-US base has an uncontested long-term future. Base operations will remain under full UK control well into the next century. Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights and authorities in respect of Diego Garcia. This is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that. We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including to prevent foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is therefore more secure under this agreement than without it. If that were not the case, I doubt the White House, State Department or Pentagon would have praised the deal so effusively.

The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Members will be aware that the Government do not normally reveal payments for our military bases overseas, so it would be inappropriate to publicise further details of those arrangements at this stage.

The agreement also recognises and rights the wrongs of the past. The whole House would agree that the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed in the 1960s was deeply wrong and regrettable. Mauritius is now free to implement a resettlement programme to islands other than Diego Garcia. The United Kingdom and Mauritius have also committed to supporting Chagossians’ welfare, establishing a new trust fund capitalised by the UK, and providing additional Government support to Chagossians in the UK. The UK will maintain the pathway for Chagossians to obtain British citizenship. Furthermore, Mauritius and the UK will establish a new programme of visits to the archipelago for Chagossians.

The agreement also ushers in a new era in our relations with Mauritius—a Commonwealth nation and Africa’s leading democracy. We have agreed to intensify co-operation on our shared priorities, including security, growth and the environment. The agreement ensures continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, which is home to over 200 species of coral and over 800 species of fish.

Finally, I reassure the House and all members of the UK family worldwide that the agreement does not signal any change in policy on Britain’s other overseas territories. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas is not up for negotiation. The situations are not comparable. That has been acknowledged across our overseas territories. Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, vocally supported the agreement, stating that there is “no possible read across” to Gibraltar on the issue of sovereignty. Similarly, the Governor of the Falklands has confirmed that the historical contexts of the Chagos islands and the Falklands are “very different”.

The Government remain firmly committed to modern partnerships with our overseas territories based on mutual consent. After the Mauritian elections, the Government will move towards treaty signature, and it is our intention to pursue ratification in 2025 by submitting the treaty and a Bill to this House for scrutiny. This is a historic moment, a victory for diplomacy. We have saved the base and secured Britain’s national interests for the long term. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for sharing his statement with me in advance. At a time when the world is more dangerous than at any point in our lifetimes, when the middle east is on the edge of serious conflict, when there is war in Europe, and when British military forces are engaged in protecting an ally from Iranian missiles, the Government propose giving away a key strategic military asset to a state that has never controlled it, and to which the Chagossian people feel little affinity, if any. It is frankly astonishing that this announcement was slipped out at the end of last week, a few days before Parliament returned, to advantage the election timetable of the governing party in Mauritius, rather than in a statement to the House. The Times put it well:

“In a dangerous world Britain’s security is being risked by ministers and departmental lawyers who believe appeasing faux anti-colonialist sentiment in the UN matters more than the national interest.”

UK sovereignty has applied to the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than 200 years. Its strategic location, right in the centre of the Indian ocean, is unmatchable, and it houses our one and only military base in the Indo-Pacific. I can tell the House that this is a deal that the former Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Cameron, would never have done. Nor for that matter would my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly). Had they been willing to do it, the deal would have been concluded long ago. The Conservative Government declined to enter into a deal with Mauritius for reasons that I think are now clear for the House to see. The Labour Government have not published the draft treaty—they have published only a non-legally binding joint statement—so we are somewhat in the dark about exactly what has been agreed. Crucially, can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that there will be a vote on this treaty?

The noble Lord West of Spithead, the most senior military figure ever to hold office in a Labour Government, said that there is

“an irrefutable case that ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests…in danger, while also recklessly undermining fundamental principles of international law.”

I would therefore be most grateful if the Foreign Secretary could answer the following five questions. First, never mind what the Chief Minister said; what steps have the Foreign Secretary and the Government taken to reassure the people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this ill-advised decision will have no effect on their sovereignty? Secondly, and yet more importantly, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to make it clear that this decision will have no read-across for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—Episkopi, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Thirdly, what assurances has he received that no Chinese military assets will be placed on any of the nearby islands in the archipelago? While his words are welcome, the House needs to see the wording clearly set out.

Fourthly, precisely how much money are we planning that British taxpayers should pay to Mauritius for each year under this deal, as well as in total? We want full transparency on all payments that the Government intend to make, and on what the money is for. What are the payments for the privilege of giving the territory away? Fifthly, what consultations has the Foreign Secretary undertaken with the Chagossian community in this country and elsewhere? We note that his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) has, with courage and integrity, opposed this deal. It remains to be seen whether others on the Government Benches will have the good sense, courage and integrity so to do. Jonathan Powell has only just been appointed special envoy for these negotiations; can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government have ensured that there is time for us to draw on his expertise?

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary propose giving away Britain’s key strategic assets in the Indian ocean. Little or no attention has been paid to the position of those with direct heritage and family links to Chagos. We have no clear details of any safeguards that will guard against China, a close ally of Mauritius, setting up military facilities and surveillance capacity not far away. Through this statement, the Government give succour to our enemies in a dangerous world, and undermine the strategic web of Britain’s defence interests. Our country is the poorer and the lesser for it.

It takes some brass neck to criticise this Government for delivering what the last Government tried and failed to do. It was the last Government that opened these negotiations in the first place, because they understood what was at risk. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations and resolved nothing. Instead, as with much that we found across Government, they left it for us to inherit and to fix.

The shadow Foreign Secretary prays in aid the previous Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who is now auditioning for the Tory leadership. The right hon. Member for Braintree seems to have suffered short-term memory loss in the past few years, because he told the Commons that, in negotiations with Mauritius,

“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

That is exactly what we delivered. Do not take my word for it: ask President Biden, Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin. If this can win the approval of the White House and the Pentagon on the protection of security interests, I think the shadow Foreign Secretary can rest easy and put down some of the bombast.

The reality is that those who do not support the agreement support either abandoning the base or breaking international law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which is it? Our agreement secures the base, stops a potentially dangerous illegal migration route, protects the marine areas, provides new support for the Chagossians and ensures that the UK is compliant with international law. There was a time when the Tories believed in international law; they now seem to have given up, and are telling other people basically to go ahead and break it.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was a serious negotiation, which the last Government began and left to us to conclude. It secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean. The Conservatives posture; we lead. Parliament will, of course, get the scrutiny that it deserves in the coming months. He knows, too, that this was a negotiation between two Governments, and of course we kept the Chagossians informed all along the way.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a parallel reality, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about a particular aspect of the treaty that I do not believe will get a great deal of attention in all the heat and fury, but that is very important? At a time when our oceans have never been under such stress, the British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the last ocean wildernesses in the world, and tuna trawlers are lining up on the boundary of the no-take zone, trying to entice fish across into their nets. Artisanal fishing by Chagossians who have come home is quite possible in this ecosystem, but licensed fishing is not, and any break in environmental protection will lead to a huge spike in illegal fishing. Will the Foreign Security inform the House what provision has been made to ensure the ongoing protection of this unique part of the world once the administration of the islands is handed over to Mauritius, and what involvement the Chagossians have had in that process?

I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will of course do everything we can, and have done everything we can—including combating illegal fishing—to better secure the environment. A new marine protected area will be established and managed as part of the deal. We will continue to work with the Mauritians on that marine protected area, and the United States will play its part as well. I am grateful for the question.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Five years on from the ICJ ruling, the Liberal Democrats welcome the effort to comply with the advice of that Court while protecting our national security interests at a time of global insecurity. However, we put on record our concerns about the way in which that process was conducted, and the risk that it bakes into a new treaty the historic injustices faced by the Chagossian people.

The voice of the Chagossians has been excluded throughout the negotiations and the outcome. That is deeply regrettable. The UK rightly believes in the principle of self-determination, yet there has been no opportunity for the self-determination of Chagossians. Today I met Maxwell Evenor, a Chagossian living in Crawley who is desperate to return to the islands. Maxwell said to me:

“All we have is our voice but that has been silenced for so long.”

Will the Foreign Secretary set out how the voices of Chagossians can be injected into the process, even at this late stage? The House was too often bypassed under the last Conservative Government, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that there will be proper parliamentary oversight of the final treaty.

Finally, may I express my concern about some of the language used by those on the Benches of the official Opposition in response to this announcement? There is no equivalence between the Chagos islands and other British overseas territories. We must be absolutely clear about that, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reaffirm it. For some Conservative Members to entertain the idea that Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands are in some sense at risk is to play into the hands of those who do not share Britain’s interests. We in this House must speak with one voice when it comes to Britain’s sovereign overseas territories.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the plight of the Chagossians. The way in which they were treated in the 1960s was wrong and is a matter of immense regret, and he is absolutely right to raise those issues. He will know that this negotiation was between two state parties, as is the way with such matters, and we sought to keep the Chagossians informed along the way. My belief is that the previous Government also sought to do that. I reassure him that a trust fund has been set up to ensure that Chagossians are able to get support. They are also able to apply for citizenship of this country. Although there is not one view among Chagossian groups—he will recognise that there are Chagossians in the Seychelles, in Mauritius and in the United Kingdom, so it is hard to get one view—we will continue to do all we can to support them.

I acknowledge the Foreign Secretary’s words on trying to right an historic wrong, and on how that will help to improve relations with the global south. I also note the words of support from our closest ally, the US President. However, what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the strategic defence importance of the US-UK base remains after the expiration of the deal? How will we ensure that the voice of the Chagossians, who have never been under Mauritian Government control, will be central to any future arrangement?

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. In relation to the global south, he will have seen that the Government of India welcomed the agreement, and that India committed to continued work with Mauritius and like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom—that was important. The agreement that has been struck can be extended upon completion of the lease. As I said before, we are committed to working with the Chagossians —that is why we have a trust fund set up. Of course, now that Mauritius will effectively be in charge upon completion of the treaty, it is saying that it will work with the Chagossians on resettlements—not on Diego Garcia, but on some of the other islands in the surrounds.

This is a shameful day for British democracy and a dark moment for human rights in the United Kingdom. Already, the people of the Chagos islands have been forcibly removed from their homeland; today, this Government are handing their home over to a foreign country that is in cahoots with a hostile nation. The Foreign Secretary must commit to allowing the British Chagossian people the right of self-determination—the same right we afford to every other British overseas territory. Are the people of the Chagos islands of less worth than the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians or the people of any other British overseas territory? Will he commit to allowing the people of the Chagos islands to decide their own destiny?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mauritius. He knows that these discussions began under the last Government; he will also have read the ICJ judgment and will know it is important that this deal was struck. The last Government left it to us to do it; we did it, and we are proud of it.

Words that are said in this House bear a huge amount of weight, particularly for citizens in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary clearly set out that nothing in this agreement or in his statement today affects their settled status and their self-determination?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and of course I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman that even when I was on the Government Benches, I was opposed to what my Government were doing, even when they were only going to go halfway? He supported my position then; why has he now turned around?

The one point I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench is that the Mauritian Government are guilty of vast human rights abuses, locking up other politicians who are independent, and that the black Creole Mauritians were traduced by that Government. We have handed that Government rights that the Chagossians have never agreed to, so my question is this: why was this done in a rush, just before their election? The Mauritian Government will now use this agreement to benefit themselves in the re-election process. Why are we doing that to support a disgusting Government who are in league with the Chinese?

The right hon. Gentleman has immense experience in this House. As Members of this House know, sometimes one is able to strike up friendships across the Floor—we are fellow Spurs supporters—but Mauritius is a country that is part of our Commonwealth, so I cannot possibly associate myself with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

Let us be clear: what was done to the Chagossians back in the 1960s is a matter of regret. It is a sore that has run through our relations with Mauritius, but also with substantial parts of the global south. That is why we continued the negotiations and struck this agreement—the right hon. Gentleman may well have disagreed with the last Government, but I remind him that they undertook 11 rounds of negotiations.

On the penultimate day of the last Labour Government, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, created the marine protected area around the British Indian Ocean Territory. At that time, it was the largest protected area anywhere in the world. As my right hon. Friend knows, the last time a prosecution was brought for illegal fishing in that area was in 2020, four and a half years ago, and the way in which that prosecution was conducted meant that a £10,000 fine—a mere slap on the wrist—was levied against the vessel. Such vessels take hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish out of that marine protected area. Who is going to pay? How committed are the Government to ensuring that that marine protected area continues to exist, and how will they ensure that the minimal level of protection that is currently in place is increased?

I know how my hon. Friend has championed these issues for many years, and I reassure him that this was an issue of intense discussion under the last Government and under this Government. We recognise the importance of that marine protected area, and when he sees the provisions of the treaty come forward, we can of course have a further discussion on that surety.

It would appear that the judgment—the potential next judgment—of a spurious, rather political foreign Court matters more than the issue of national sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary boasts that President Biden likes this deal. The Speaker said earlier that this House should not be affected by elections that take place in foreign countries, but how confident is the Foreign Secretary that Donald Trump, if he becomes the 47th President of the USA, will approve of this deal, given the importance of our relationship with America?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me reassure him that we have sought to take views across the US political establishment, but I do say to him that to get a US President, a US Secretary of State for foreign affairs and a US Secretary of Defence to applaud this agreement should reassure him that the US would do nothing that helped our enemies, particularly the Chinese, in this regard.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, despite others trying to score cheap political points and recklessly scaremonger among the residents of our other overseas territories, this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar and of the Falklands?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.

The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.

I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—

And I rejected it then.

Did the right hon. Gentleman raise this when he was part of the last Government, and did he make it a resignation issue? No, he did not, because he knows that we inherited this, and we had to make a deal.

Can I begin by congratulating Conservative Members on their sudden interest in national security? They must have forgotten all about the millions and millions of Russian roubles swilling about in the party’s bank accounts.

I do have a question for the Foreign Secretary, and I want to ask a question on behalf of my constituents in Plymouth and of the constituency of the Royal Marines community in the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar represent something really personal and special to anyone who has served in the Navy or the Royal Marines. These are places that hold a real emotional weight: not only does it say “Gibraltar” across the Royal Marines cap badge, but it is written across our hearts. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure that constituency about what this Government’s plans are for the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his service and the seriousness with which he puts his remarks. I can give him that unequivocal assurance for the Falklands, for Gibraltar, for Cyprus and the rights that exist. The situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory is completely different and not comparable, and I regret that in a way this decision has been made against the backdrop of a Conservative leadership contest, and that colleagues who know a lot better have sought to make partisan points with something so important.

Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?

This deal secures the future of the base beyond the lifetime of anyone currently in this Parliament, and it can be extended. That is why the US Secretary of Defence has welcomed it. I would have thought that a former head of NATO of course welcomes this deal, because it secures the base and our national security, and the national security of the global community.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the vital operations on the base on Diego Garcia will remain completely unaltered and without disruption thanks to this agreement?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Absolutely, yes, I can.

Over the past 210 years Chagossians have been traded, deprived of their liberty and of their dignity. They have been displaced from their homeland and now, thanks to this process, they face the prospect of being dispossessed from their islands and from their future hope of self-determination. Chagossians are not children, and they do not require or ask for a trust fund. They are a proud community of many thousands of people who have been wronged time after time, and who today are looking to the Foreign Secretary, to the UK, and to Members of this House to ensure that their right to self-determination is understood and respected. Many of those Chagossians are outside right now. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer them that reassurance and think again on this negotiation?

The way that the Chagossians were treated was wrong, and this deal secures a right to settlement for them to the outer islands. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a range of opinions among them, but he is absolutely right to put on record the manner in which they were treated, which I hope the whole House would accept is a matter of immense regret.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of illegal migration on to Diego Garcia carried the threat of creating a further smuggling route into the UK, and has that threat now been shut down?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.

I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?

I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.

This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Some would argue that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was only advisory and that the UN General Assembly resolution of 22 May 2019 was not binding, but he will recognise that many of our closest allies voted against us on that occasion. It is important that we are a country that upholds the rule of law. I am called to come to this Dispatch Box to make the case for standing with Ukraine and for international humanitarian law. For all those reasons, we must be a country that upholds the rules-based order.

We have just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation that is an ally of China, and we are paying for the privilege, all so the Foreign Secretary can feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party. In whose interests does he think he serves: those of the global diplomatic elite or those of the British people and our national interest?

Well, I hope that question may have garnered the right hon. Gentleman a few more votes, but if that is his position, he is unlikely to lead the Conservative party to victory. This deal secures the base and it is in our national interests. That is why it is a good deal and it is why the President and the Defence Secretary of the United States applaud and welcome this deal. What do they know about global national security that he does not?

It is fairly unseemly, seeing a leadership race being conducted in the middle of a foreign policy debate—that is what is happening—but does the Secretary of State agree that clarity over the legal status of Diego Garcia, achieved through diplomacy with a Commonwealth partner, cements our influence in the Indo-Pacific?

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Commonwealth matters to those on the Government Benches. It used to matter to those on the Opposition Benches. As we head to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, it is hugely important that we are a country that plays by the rules. That is why this agreement is so important.

I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?

As I have said, this deal will mean that, for the first time, Chagossians will be able to resettle on the outer islands. This was a negotiation between the United Kingdom Government and Mauritius; that was the nature of the state agreement. Of course, we sought to keep Chagossians informed, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that there are a range of Chagossian groups, with some in the Seychelles, some in Mauritius and some in this country.

When the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), was leading negotiations with Mauritius, he said:

“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

This Government have now delivered that. On that basis, should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?

My hon. Friend is completely right, but she knows that the Conservatives have got a leadership contest on, and this is a bit of a beauty parade. That is why they are stepping away from a negotiation that they began, had 11 rounds on and failed to deliver on.

Having heard the Foreign Secretary’s performance this afternoon, we now know why the Government did not dare announce this in the House of Commons. This abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing—that is what it is—risks a Chinese veto over a vital military facility. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how much in rent this country will now pay Mauritius for the right to lease back what is already ours? Which Government Department—the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will pay the landlord?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a Chinese veto. The Chinese do not have a veto in this House. The treaty will be scrutinised by this House. All Members will be able to look at it, debate it and reflect on it. Of course, at the time of publishing the treaty, there will be a discussion of the costs, but no basing agreements ever discuss costs, because that would damage our national security, and the Government are not prepared to do that.

Given that the previous Government began these negotiations, does the Foreign Secretary agree that while Opposition Members may now be more interested in the views of Tory party members, this Government will always act in Britain’s national interests?

My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party used to claim to be a party of defence. This is an agreement that secures our national defence and security interests in an important part of the globe, so it is shameful to see Opposition Members behaving as they are.

May I just describe the right hon. Gentleman as hopelessly naive? Has he not seen how the rule of international law across the world is collapsing under the challenge from Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? Given a few flimsy pieces of paper, how much does he think that China or any of those other countries will respect it after we have given up the principle that this is British sovereign territory?

Up against a tough geopolitical environment in which Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are far from playing by the global rules, it is hugely important that this country is one that supports the rules-based order, and it is hugely important that this facility has been secured for longer than anybody else in this Parliament was able to do. That is what we have secured. I trust the judgment of our closest ally, not that of the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached over the Chagos islands that helps to right a historic wrong and guarantees the security that we need. Among the confected outrage from the Opposition Benches we have heard the expected scaremongering over the future of other territories, including Gibraltar. Both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) have in recent months reaffirmed the double lock on Gibraltar’s sovereignty, meaning not only that Gibraltarian sovereignty will never be altered without its people’s consent but that the UK Government will never enter into a process of negotiation with which the Gibraltarian people are not content. Does that remain the case?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Minister of State communicated that with a letter to the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago. What we have seen in the last few days from the Opposition has been wholly irresponsible.

The Foreign Secretary said he is establishing a trust fund and that Chagossians will be able to apply for British citizenship. What discussions did he have with the Chagossian people about that? Can he confirm that the Home Office is ready to deal with the applications?

They already can apply for UK citizenship. Of course we have been in dialogue and discussions with the Chagossians. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met them regularly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement has no bearing on the Government’s relationship with the other overseas territories and that the UK Government’s policy towards the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and other territories remains unchanged, with support for their right to self-determination?

Self-determination is the key word, and we absolutely support the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in that regard.

Coming from Northern Ireland, I am not surprised that this Government have surrendered British interests against the wishes of the people who live there, because, after all, they supported the previous Government’s deal in relation to EU demands on Northern Ireland. The Government have given away a strategic interest. They have not published the deal. They will not reveal the cost. They will not guarantee that there will be no Chinese influence in this strategic area. They have handed this strategic interest to a country that has no historical claim. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the impact that this has on other people who are eyeing British territory—the EU in respect of Gibraltar and Argentina in respect of the Falklands? This is a dirty, dangerous and desperate deal. It is a shameful surrender of British interests. Is the Foreign Secretary relying on the fact that the Government have a huge, sledgehammer majority that can drive this through the House, despite its impact on long-term British interests?

I think the right hon. Gentleman lost much of the House when he said that the people live there—they do not; that is the whole point. This is a deal that will give them the right to resettlement on the outer islands. I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s caricature.

President Biden, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have welcomed the agreement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tory critics do not know more about US national security than the White House and the Pentagon?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows, as the whole House knows, that it does not matter who is in the White House or who is in No. 10: for generations, the US and the UK have acted in concert, and the future of Diego Garcia has been central to that. It has been central to the security of the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific, and central to global security. The capabilities across our nations are essential. That is why it is so sad to see the Conservative party not living up to where it should be on these crucial issues of national security, which ought not to be partisan.

My old boss, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, won his Distinguished Service Cross in the Falklands in 1982. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Lord West is a former Labour security Minister. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that Lord West is of the view that what he is doing poses a grave security risk to this country and is likely to undermine our position in the Falkland Islands? Will he give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who asked whether Lord Robertson had been consulted in any way over the decision that the Foreign Secretary has made?

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the remarks of the Chief Minister of the Falkland Islands, and I urge him to consult more widely the defence establishment in this country, which is pleased that an issue that was looking as though it might become very contentious between us and the United States in terms of global national security has now been settled.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and particularly for the reassurances given to our brothers and sisters in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The scaremongering in respect of those two areas has been absolutely shameful. However, in the spirit of trying to achieve cross-party consensus, it is really important to acknowledge the work of the previous Government on this subject and how that has provided the foundation for what we have today. Before then, progress was all too slow, and it shamed our country. None the less, I want to give the Secretary the opportunity again to reassure us that this deal is in our strategic interest and also the interest of our partners.

There is seriousness behind my hon. Friend’s question. I reassure him that the Defence Secretary and I have sought to secure a deal that secures the future of the base long after any of us in this Chamber are left. In particular, it ensures that China cannot locate on any of the other islands, as well as Diego Garcia. In truth, that is why the President, Defence Secretary and Secretary of State of the United States have welcomed this deal. It is also important to recognise that India has welcomed this deal—it does not want China in its backyard.

How does the cost of leasing compare with the savings that the Government are making on the winter fuel allowance?

The right hon. Gentleman will be able to return to these issues when the treaty is before the House. He must wait, as I do, for the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary will have a go at answering a direct question. How much will the UK have to pay for the privilege of ceding our sovereignty?

As I have said, these are issues that we can discuss when we have the treaty. It is not routine for any Government to comment on basing arrangements. The hon. Lady would not expect us to do that and put our national interests at stake.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Government’s commitment to our populated British overseas territories is fundamental, unshakeable and unbreakable. I am glad to hear him make his statement, and I think this is a good thing for Britain.

My hon. Friend is right. There is an important distinction between the Indian ocean overseas territories and Diego Garcia, and Gibraltar and the Falklands, which are, of course, populated. The self-determination of those people is essential to their future, which is why the remarks that have been made over the past few days are wholly unacceptable and shameful.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to recognise that what happened to the Chagossian people in the 1960s and 1970s was abominable, abusive, illegal and disgraceful? Many of them lived in poverty for many years after in the Seychelles and Mauritius. They have long demanded their right to return to Diego Garcia and to the archipelago, which has been denied until now. It is right for the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute to those Chagossians who led that campaign for the right of return and resettlement on their home islands. An apology is due to the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.

Could I also ask the Foreign Secretary about the situation in Diego Garcia? It is unclear to me whether Chagossian people can visit, reside, stay or remain there, or whether they will be denied going there for another 140 years because of the deal done with the USA. Finally, why have the Americans been offered a 140-year lease as part of this deal? That is a very long time in recorded history of any sort, and longer than many countries have even existed. Can he explain that?

The right hon. Gentleman has championed the Chagossians in their plight for many years in this House. He makes his remarks with tremendous passion and strength, and he is right to do so. The way they were treated was wrong. I will have more to say on that when I bring forward the treaty in the months ahead. On whether they will now have a right to visit Diego Garcia, I must tell him that they will not under this treaty. Any resettlement or visits will be to the outer islands. This is an important US-UK security base, so I am unable to give him that assurance—they do not have that right under this treaty.

I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?

I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the islands being contested and this agreement putting them beyond contestation. That makes us all more secure as a result, as he knows because of his service. I think that most of the general public who have paid attention recognise that this is a deal that we in the United Kingdom can be proud of.

After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?

Yes to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will come forward with plans in due course.

In the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement he said:

“A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable”.

That seems misleading verbal baby food at best. So far, there has been a non-binding advisory opinion and nothing to suggest that we will breach any form of international law. At a time of increasing global conflict, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why there is such urgency to do what he is proposing? It seems to be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.

It was precisely to put the base on a secure footing, because of that global uncertainty, that this deal was the right deal.

I must say that I am surprised by Labour’s conversion to the merits of leasehold rather than the security of freehold ownership—I did not think that was its position. In addition to being an unsinkable aircraft carrier, the British Indian Ocean Territory is host to unique space observation capabilities. It is the only remote monitoring place in the southern hemisphere that is able to see parts of the sky to which we would otherwise be blind. Space is a heavily contested military domain, so did the Foreign Secretary even know about these space monitoring capabilities? What are his plans to secure alternatives to save our freedom and security?

Foreign Secretaries do not comment on such capabilities, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.

The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?

As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.

We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?

The hon. Gentleman is not new to this House. We will follow the usual processes, as he would expect.

We saw a previous Labour Government sell off this country’s gold. We now have a Labour Government who are surrendering our sovereignty and giving away our territory. Has the Foreign Secretary had any specific discussions with the Chagossian people as part of the negotiations?

I will not take lectures from a party that left a £22 billion black hole and our public services in a state. The chutzpah of the Opposition is unbelievable.

Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting some of the overseas territories or meeting their representatives here in Westminster are very much aware of their strong loyalty to and admiration for the United Kingdom. Even if they have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, perhaps they are right to have a nagging doubt that that loyalty will not be returned, are they not?

Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman, because there is seriousness behind his question, that all of us believe in the right to self-determination. I am unequivocally, absolutely clear that the overseas territories remain an important part of our national story and nothing we have done in this deal puts them in any jeopardy.

Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?

We will always defend the Falkland Islands. I raised that point with Argentina’s Foreign Secretary just last week in New York.

Because we have done a deal that secures the security of the global community. I cannot recall if the hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but I have to tell him that we found ourselves with no one supporting our claim in the family of the UN and the rules-based order. For that reason, the previous Government began the negotiations and it is absolutely right that we conclude them.

The Foreign Secretary has made a very clear point. In 1982 Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories. Some 42 years later, it is important that that legacy is carried on. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that this decision has no bearing on other overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar? I have many friends who live in the Falklands and Gibraltar. What steps will be taken to protect and preserve them?

Yes, I can. In that regard, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the former Prime Minister and state once again that the right to self-determination governs our relationship with the overseas territories. They remain a very important part of our national story and nothing in this deal undermines that important relationship. That is why the Governor of the Falklands and Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar have been very clear about that in the past few days.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was standing throughout the statement.